DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/04/2025 (“Amendment”). Claims 21-40 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 21, 24-26, 29, and 33-39, as well as the addition of new claim 40.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40, there is no description of each ionic layer having an anion layer situated between two cation layers. Instead, Fig. 11 shows that each ionic layer has one cation layer and one anion layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-26, 28, 30-36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0056302 (“Ahmad’302”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0069818 (“Prasad”) and US Patent Application Publication 2009/0293590 (“Zeng”).
Regarding claim 21, Ahmad’302 teaches [a] detection device for detecting one or more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath of a user (¶¶s 0101, 0102), the detection device comprising: a sensor module comprising at least one electrochemical sensor comprising an electrode (¶¶s 0221, 0279) …; and a mouthpiece configured to direct a volume of breath from the user toward the at least one electrochemical sensor (Fig. 10 shows e.g. a face mask 42 directing a volume of breath toward a sensor inside chamber 48, and ¶ 0088 explains that a mouthpiece is an obvious alternative to a face mask for fluid input. As such, it would have been obvious to use a mouthpiece instead of a face mask as a matter of obvious design choice, and as the simple substitution of one fluid input arrangement for another with predictable results).
Ahmad’302 does not appear to explicitly teach an ionic liquid arranged over the electrode of the electrochemical sensor, the ionic liquid configured to form a nanocavity between ionic layers of the ionic liquid for capturing the target VOC between the ionic layers of the ionic liquid, the nanocavity being formed in response to applying an input signal to the electrochemical sensor, the input signal being selected based on a redox potential of the target VOC for capturing the target VOC between ionic layers of the ionic liquid.
Prasad teaches using an ionic liquid arranged over an electrode for electrochemical sensing (¶ 0021 describes using an ionic liquid for electrochemical sensing, and ¶ 0024 describes its arrangement over an electrode). Prasad teaches that the ionic liquid is specific to a target VOC (¶ 0042, providing a gating effect for screening out/in nonspecific versus specific species). Prasad teaches applying an input signal to the electrochemical sensor to form a nanocavity between the ionic layers of the ionic liquid (¶ 0042, applying a direct current field to achieve electrophoretic modulation and diffusion of charged species), the input signal being selected based on a redox potential of the target VOC (¶ 0042, a gating effect for specific species).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ionic liquid in the electrochemical sensor of Ahmad’302, and to achieve a gating effect via application of an input signal to the sensor, as in Prasad, for the purpose of improving sensing by enhancing transport and mobility of target analytes via gating (Prasad: ¶¶s 0024, 0030, 0042, 0043).
Ahmad’302-Prasad does not appear to explicitly teach the ionic liquid including 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium salt and the ionic liquid being specific to a target VOC characteristic of COVID-19.
Zeng teaches using 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium as an ionic liquid in an electrochemical sensor (the Abstract and ¶ 0187 describe the sensor, and ¶¶s 0105 and 0106 describe 1-alkyl-3-methylimidazolium, where the alkyl is an independently selected alkyl group such as C.sub.2 (ethyl)). Zeng teaches that this sensor can detect organic vapors including heptane and environmental gas including NO2 (¶¶s 0100, 0101, 0111, 0187, etc. - compare to ¶ 0010 of Applicant’s specification as filed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium as the ionic liquid in the combination, as in Zeng, as the simple substitution of one known ionic liquid (that of Prasad) for another (that of Zeng) with predictable results (Zeng: Abstract, permitting absorption and detection of analytes using electrochemical means - also see e.g. ¶ 0012, describing control over selectivity and sensitivity, ¶ 0023, achieving a fast linear and reversible response).
Regarding claim 22, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the ionic liquid comprises a room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) (Prasad: Abstract, ¶ 0021, etc.; Zeng: ¶ 0105).
Regarding claim 23, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the detection device comprises a handheld housing and wherein the sensor module is arranged in the handheld housing (Ahmad’302: Abstract, ¶ 0005, etc. - also see Fig. 10, where chamber 48 contains the sensor).
Regarding claims 24-26 and 29, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the size of the nanocavity corresponds to the redox potential of the target VOC characteristic of COVID-19 (Prasad: ¶¶s 0042, 0043, the size of the cavity is tailored to the specific species, which in the combination is e.g. heptane and/or NO2 ), wherein the nanocavity is configured to capture the target VOC such that the captured VOC diffuses toward the electrode (Prasad: ¶ 0042, achieving diffusion towards the functionalized sensing surface/electrode - also see ¶ 0024, etc.), further comprising one or more processors (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0124) configured to detect the captured VOC based at least in part on a change in at least one of an impedance or a current measured at the electrode (Prasad: ¶¶s 0026, 0042, etc. - also see Fig. 1, showing a microcontroller 115), wherein a voltage amplitude of the input signal is adjusted to match the redox potential of the target VOC characteristic of COVID-19 (Prasad: ¶¶s 0025, 0037-0039, 0042, etc., describing the tailored generation of the electric field for specific species).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the sensor module comprises a plurality of electrochemical sensors (Prasad: ¶ 0017, one or more sensors), wherein each of at least a portion of the plurality of electrochemical sensors comprises a respective ionic layer, wherein the respective ionic layers are specific to different target VOCs (Prasad: ¶ 0024, each sensor of the array is independently functionalized for specific detection of a respective target analyte, allowing monitoring of multiple different analytes).
Regarding claims 31-33, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the mouthpiece comprises a tube (Ahmad’302: Fig. 10, tube 43), wherein the mouthpiece comprises one or more filters configured to filter particulates from the volume of breath (Ahmad’302: Fig. 10, filter 44 - also see ¶ 0263, filtering particles), wherein the mouthpiece comprises one or more desiccants configured to reduce moisture in the volume of breath (Ahmad’302: Fig. 10, filter 44 - also see ¶ 0263, removing moisture, and ¶ 0093, a desiccant).
Regarding claims 34-36, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the mouthpiece is coupled to a compartment coupleable to the sensor module, wherein the compartment is sealable and configured to store the volume of breath (Ahmad’302: Fig. 10, distendable volume 45 located between the mouthpiece on the left and the sensor on the right. Volume 45 is sealable via e.g. valve 49 and stores the volume of breath (¶ 0262 - also see ¶ 0094)), wherein the compartment is removably coupleable to the sensor module (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0094, storable in the bag for later analysis by the apparatus), wherein the compartment is compressible (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0261, the volume 45 is a compressible compartment because it is distendable - also see ¶¶s 0088, 0347, etc., explicitly describing a bag).
Regarding claim 39, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium trifluoromethane sulfonate (Zeng: ¶ 0106, CF3SO3− as the anion).
Regarding claim 40, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng further teaches wherein the ionic layers include a layer of RTIL anions situated between two layers of RTIL cations (Prasad: Fig. 3).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0099129 (“Kopelman”).
Regarding claim 27, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng does not appear to explicitly teach an alarm configured to provide an alert in response to detection of the target VOC using the at least one electrochemical sensor (although Ahmad’302: ¶ 0264 does describe using a sensor for communicating with local alarms).
Kopelman teaches alerting a user when a particular marker is sensed (¶ 0105).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to issue the alarm contemplated by Ahmad’302 when the target VOC was detected, as in Kopelman, for the purpose of alerting a user that action may be required (Ahmad’302: ¶ 0264; Kopelman: ¶ 0105).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0245797 (“Ahmad’797”).
Regarding claim 37, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 34, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the compartment comprises one or more one-way valves.
Ahmad’797 teaches a breath bag having a one-way valve (¶ 0234).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the one-way valve contemplated by Ahmad’302 from the mouthpiece (¶ 0093) to the breath bag, as in Ahmad’797, as an obvious rearrangement of parts. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0133120 (“Varney”).
Regarding claim 38, Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Ahmad’302-Prasad-Zeng does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the ionic liquid comprises 1-ethyl-3-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate (although Zeng: ¶¶s 0161, 0183, 0184, 0193, 0196, etc. describe tetrafluoroborate, BF.sub.4, as part of a similar exemplary ionic liquid where the butyl group is replaceable with ethyl as described in ¶¶s 0105 and 0106).
Varney teaches using this ionic liquid in an electrochemical sensor (¶ 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this ionic liquid in the combination as the simple substitution of one known ionic liquid (that of Zeng) for another (that of Varney) with predictable results (performing electrochemical sensing), and for the purpose of achieving wide detection range and stability (Varney: ¶ 0015). This usefulness also suggests that the particular ionic liquid would have been “obvious to try.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/04/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, they are not persuasive. Although it is true that Prasad does not mention the term “redox potential,” its input signal is selected so as to achieve a particular gating effect. I.e., the selection is based on the size needed to target the particular species, which occurs by applying an input signal that allows the specie to enter the cavity and for electron transfer to occur (see ¶ 0118 of Applicant’s specification as filed). Thus, all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408)918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791